I’ve now re-readConspirata, the second in Robert Harris’ historical fiction trilogy covering the career of Marcus Tullius Cicero. When I first purchased this book, nearly five years ago, I had a terrible time finding it. The reason is because the title, Conspirata, was only used in the United States and in Italy. Elsewhere, the book was sold under its original title, Lustrum. The book, at that time about six years beyond its publishing date, seemed nowhere to be found I was convinced it was out of print. It is not; it can easily be found, here, just under its American name.

The original title, Lustrum, is the Latin term for a half-a-decade, the period of the census in the Roman Republic*. The taking of the census also had religious trappings, so the Romans associated the word with sacred rituals. Within the story, its use specifically refers to Caesar’s securing of a 5-year military command in Gaul at a time when terms were limited to a single year (although they were renewable) . Someone at the publisher, apparently, decided that this was a bit too obscure for the American consumer and went with a title that more obviously references he Catiline Conspiracy. Conspirata/Lustrum begins where the previous volume left off, with Cicero as Consul. We follow through Cicero’s discovery and foiling of Catiline’s plans as well as the fallout in the years thereafter.

Having simultaneously read Conspirata and watchedGood Night, and Good Luck, I got to thinking about what these two historical events have to tell us about American politics in the here and now. The last shall be first.

The excesses of Joseph McCarthy’s hearings are a defining characteristic of the modern body politic. For as long as I have been alive, all Americans, no matter their political leanings, agree that the “witch hunt” of McCarthyism is a dark mark on our democracy. Particularly in the mid-to-late 1950s, the consensus of America was decidedly anti-communist, but it was also decidedly anti-McCarthyism. It was a living example of ends not justifying the means. Generations grew up with The Crucible being taught in schools and the imagery of colonial Salem’s court and McCarthy’s hearing room being tied together.

What does this mean today? For George Clooney** in 2005, he saw shadows of the 50s in the media and politics of that present day. Jump ahead fifteen years, and I have to wonder how much that context has changed in a rather short time. Clooney, quoting Edward R. Murrow, raises the issue of the responsibility of television and, by extension, film to not just entertain, but to inform. In the case of Murrow, with his direct criticism of McCarthy, he was pushing an envelope – framing newsworthy events of the day within editorializing opinion. From Clooney’s standpoint, one might assume, this duty to inform includes separating right opinions from wrong opinions when “reporting” the news.

But now we are fifteen years into the future of Good Night‘s present. The likes of CBS are no longer leaders in terms of informing the American public. People get their news from a variety of sources and trust in major media*** is low. The old networks, for that matter, can barely hang on to their role as entertainers much less use their bully pulpit to cultivate, convince, and cajole.

Consider also whether a “witch hunt” atmosphere pervades our society today today (or, at least, is on the rise). Assuming it is even possible, try to see past the othering and objectively consider from whence restrictions on speech and restrictions on thought come. This isn’t the 1950s, so using the pressure of “the system” to control political dissent doesn’t seem to be possible anymore – if it was even then. Instead, the phrase “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” is used to justify an enforcement of conformity without, ostensibly, restricting speech or using the power of the state to suppress dissent. Is driving a cake-maker out of business really any less onerous than seeing that a newsreader or screenwriter can no longer find employment in the industry? Is there much difference?

So perhaps America is condemned to repeat our periodic witch trials, in one form or another, because the impulses that lead to them are so ingrained in our nature. Furthermore, we’ve proven we can survive it; even thrive. A defining characteristic of the McCarthy period is, despite an overwhelming anti-communist consensus, we rapidly integrated into our national self-image that the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience which our nation protects is more important than the political consensus du jour. Thus far, we’ve always come out of it alright, albeit occasionally at great cost. We are not, after all, like the late Roman Republic, where bribery, murder, intimidation, and might-makes-right were considered politics-as-usual? Are we?

The Catiline Conspiracy is a lesser-known incident in the tumultuous period leading up to the end of the ancient Republic. In popular culture it is overshadowed by Plutarch-cum-Shakespeare and our focus on the life of Julius Caesar. It is Cataline, not Caesar, however who would seem a little more at home in the current election cycle.

Cataline, or Lucius Sergius Catilina, was understood to be descendant from Sergestus, a figure who had come with Aeneas to Italy following the Trojan War. His family name was synonymous with old money and old power, although it lacked the clout that it wielded as well as the wealth that so often is required to back up power. On top of his ancestry, Cataline had distinguished himself with his military service during tumultous times. Amazingly, he also avoiding becoming entangled in Sulla’s civil war. While he supported Sulla in the end, he also had marital ties to Marius. With his reputation and name, he expected to eventually rise to the consulship of Rome.

He wasn’t all solemnity and service, however, as it was well known he had his dark side and more than few skeletons in his closet. Cataline was accused of killing his brother-in-law and suspected of killing his first wife and son (so that he could remarry more favorably). He was brought to trial for defiling a Vestal Virgin, which was then a capital crime. Although he was acquitted, it more likely due his his political connections than his actual innocence. Conspirata portrays him as slightly mad and more than a bit homicidal.

Misbehavior while Governor of Africa resulted in delaying his run for Consul (Senators on trial could not stand for the consulship). The result of the delay was that he found himself running against the ambitious Cicero, rather than the unremarkable Gaius Marcius Figulus. While Cataline’s campaign had massive financial backing from dark money (again, relying on Harris as my source), Cicero was able to secure the unlikely support of the “old guard.” A key plank of Cataline’s platform was a blanket forgiveness of student (oops, wrong millennium) debt. Cataline lost and blamed Cicero for stealing an election for the office which was his destiny.

By the following election, when Cataline ran a second time, an alliance between Cataline and Julius Caesar had become evident. The two Senators advocated the combination of debt cancellation and distribution of free land to the poor as a vote-grabbing, populist platform. While Caesar was, himself, too young to stand for Consul, he managed to secure the position of Pontifex Maximus – ruffling more than a few feathers. Cataline began to be seen as Caesar’s proxy in the Consul’s seat. Appreciating the threat, (again****, we’ll rely on Harris’ narrative), Cicero conspired with the patrician establishment and wealthy general Lucius Licinius Lucullus to block Cataline from the office. As Consul, Cicero proposed to hold a triumph for Lucullus concurrent to the next election. A legionnaires traveled from distance provinces to celebrate within Rome’s walls voting would be titled toward’s Lucullus’ lieutenent Lucius Licinius Murena, another candidate for the office. Murena won, but it was a dirty election even by Roman standards.

Outright bribery aside (which was both frowned upon and condoned simultaneously), the annual election season was expected to be accompanied by lavish spending by the candidates. Frustrated by the obvious corruption, Cato (the younger) with consular candidate Servius Sulpicius Rufus (a student and friend of Cicero, thrown under the bus to foil Cataline) proposed a law which declared the hosting of banquets and games to be bribery, prosecutable***** under the law.

Up until this point, I feel like it would only take some minor adjustments to match today’s political environment to Cataline’s story. What is also missing is the dark forces behind the scenes that were funding it all. One must assume that the populist leanings of Cataline, Caesar, and the likes of Publius Clodius Pulcher were merely the means to power, not an end unto themselves. Similarly the money and backing of Crassus and Pompey, critical to any conspiracy, was invested according to the self-interest of the investor. Do the politics of today similarly have a unifying purpose behind them all? Or is that sort of thing just the fantasies of the far-flung partisan commentators. What about what happened next in Rome? Could anything like it happen in the here and now?

After losing the election to Murena and Decimus Junius Silanus, Cataline felt that he had been robbed by his birthright not once, but twice, by Cicero. Feeling he had no other recourse, he plotted the murder of Cicero and the armed overthrow of the Roman Republic. Although originally to be an expression of the will of the people over corrupt, moneyed interests, his proposed tactics began turning ugly (again****). He planned to kill not only Cicero, but other Senators who represented Rome’s ancient nobility. His forces would burn Rome and sow destruction and chaos. He even proposed augmenting his army by instigating a slave uprising and taking the side of their revolution.

For Cataline, the defense of freedom was too important to let tradition, law, order, or much of anything stand in the way of removing the illegitimate politicians from power. For most of Rome, he had taken it too far.

So where are we, now, on this timeline?

*The primary reason for the census was to determine the number of men eligible for military service.

**I’ve long been aware of the fame of Clooney’s aunt. I did not realize that his father was a network anchorman and a (failed) candidate for the U.S. House. Dad, need I say, is a Democrat. But Clooney first attempted to follow in his father’s footsteps by majoring in journalism before he found a career as an actor.

***Identification of big media as biased or “fake news” is nearly universal if one allows that the culprit is restricted to those on the other side of the political divide from one’s self.

****The heavily politicized environment means there are two sides to each of these stories. Cataline was considered a reformer and a friend to the common man by many and one must assume that any of the evils of which he stands accused by history may well have been exaggerated or even fabricated by those who were against him.

*****In the Roman Republic, there were no public prosecutions. Instead, prosecutions were done by private individuals. After losing the consular election it was Servius Sulpicius Rufus and Cato who prosecuted the winning candidate for bribery.

This weekend in the Wall Street Journal is a piece called Shall We Have Civil War or Second Thoughts? As I type this, the article appears to be available without a subscription, but that may well change before you manage to click on it.

Briefly, it leads in with some commentary on our fragmented politics today and, in particular, the racial component of identity politics. From there, the author brings up the career of his great-Grandfather, a cavalryman in the Civil War and in the Indian Wars across the Great Plains that followed. It then stumbles into the reference in the subtitle of the piece (“Some of my relatives joined the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. But they soon thought better of it.”) before wrapping it all up with the assertion that our current civil strife is but a continuation of the civil strife of generations past.

I read through it to the end because I found some of the historical references enlightening*. Getting all the way to the end, however, I had to wonder what the point of this was.

The opinion piece is a guest author filling in for Peggy Noonan’s column while she is on her summer vacation. My first thought was perhaps they couldn’t find any decent talent and they picked someone with what sounded like a solid idea, but without the writing skills to make good on it. A little later I went back and checked the bio of the author. It says, “Mr. [Lance] Morrow, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a former essayist for Time.” In other words, an man who made his living through his writing.

It now occurs to me is that what I am seeing is one of the more pernicious effects of the current culture wars and the political correctness that surrounds them. We are now used to seeing writing that is overly, sometimes absurdly adherent to political correctness, as well as the counterpieces which take things to the other extreme. What this may be is the unseen effect of this warfare. The writer attempts to take his thoughts towards certain conclusions, but then backs off, knowing that finishing his thought – indeed actually drawing a conclusion – is bound to offend somebody and therefore could potentially damage or even end the career of a writer.

The article starts off with a reference to an old Lone Ranger joke, whose punch line is has Tonto responding to the Lone Ranger with “What do you mean ‘we?'” But the author can’t bring himself to repeat the joke, or even directly state what he thinks the joke means, either then (during the time of the Lone Ranger radio broadcasts) or now (when even using the name “Tonto” seems to risk accusations of racial bigotry).

As he meanders through his family tree, he seems to be on the verge of making various points about culture and racism, then versus now, but never quite makes them. Perhaps he felt if he stated outright what was hidden away in his head, it would bring upon him the racist epithet. Nobody wants that. So we all keep our inner thoughts to ourselves, just in case.

On the other hand, maybe he is just a terrible writer. I don’t know.

* The author makes reference to some of the problems his great-Grandfather had with duties and authority and contrasts this with another story: “On the other hand, I admired the style of his wife, my great-grandmother Ella Mollen Morrow. One night at the fort, when the colonel was away scouring the plains for Native Americans, she shot a would-be rapist dead with a Colt .44. The Army didn’t even bother to investigate the incident.”

I recently read a pair of articles. They’re really quite different in almost every way, but I think they both touch on the same problem.

The first is coauthored by former White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State James A. Baker III and form Ambassador-to-the-U.N. Andrew Young and is titled “Identity Politics Are Tearing American Apart.” It was an op-ed in the Wall St. Journal on August 31st, and it probably behind the paywall for you.

The article opens up lamenting the state of politics in our nation. Coming from two such eminent figures, I wanted to know their prescription for how to heal this schism. When I got towards the end of their article, though, it seems they engage in much the same political tactic that they are criticizing in the first place.

The problem is familiar. Politically, we are splintering in to factions with intractable issues dividing us. Given that we got here from what we all remember as a less trying time, it would seem like there must be a way back. We could, of course, simply endeavor to eliminate our opponents from the political arena. While this seems to be the preference from all sides, it hardly seems likely without much genocide and reeducation camping. The alternative would be to find what brings us together, rather than what drives us apart.

When Baker and Young finally arrive at their political solution, about midway through the article, it does not appear that they have any intention of seeking out a path to reconciliation. Instead, they’ve come up with a political program of their own; one which they deem to be just the compromise we need. I don’t know if, at this point, the particulars are that important, but their plan is to increase spending on infrastructure and civic projects, as well as to raise taxes generally to facilitate a reduction in corporate tax rates. Certainly there is support for just such proposals. Perhaps even broad support. But there also there are many who (for various reasons) would oppose these initiatives. Many of those opponents would be just as earnest as the authors in their desire to serve the common interest of all Americans.

In the end, I interpret the message of Mssrs. Baker and Young, juxtaposing as they have the violence and incivility in today’s politics with their own sensible plan, that in order not to be an “extremist”, you need to back their favored position. Essentially this echoes the language of the partisan actors causing those very problems that they are claiming to solve.

Are you with me, or are you with the Nazis?

Speaking of partisan actors, the second piece that got me going was some clickbait referring back to to a Huffington Post article. I’ll not link to any of it, as the clickbait site was just regurgitating another’s material and HuffPo, while original, is engaging in this behavior that is so harmful for America. The original article had the incendiary headline, Senate Candidate Was On Radio Show With Pastor Who Said Gays Should Repent Or Die, and you are free to google it if you want to see the original.

Suffice to say that the headline was more inflammatory than the article itself. The subject is the primary race in Alabama, which was forced into a two-man runoff. The more conservative of the two remaining candidates (Roy Moore) is a newcomer and underdog in the legislative race, having been a State Supreme Court justice. As part of his campaign (one presumes), he was on a Colorado talk show with a conservative pastor who has argued for a fire and brimstone interpretation of the bible, particularly with regards to homosexuals. Ted Cruz also appeared on this radio show during the presidential campaign, and was forced to scrape, bow, and apologize for the offense. In the case of the Alabama race, said senate candidate was clear he did not advocate for the execution of gays.

I came across this whole kerfuffle when a friend posted a link to the headline, and others quickly piled on with their virtue signalling about how awful this all was, and what a “scary” guy the Senate candidate is.

The problem with today’s politics is not the mere existence of personalities like the conservative, talk-show pastor. I, frankly, think he is wrong theologically, as well as being wrong to use his platform to suggest that his fellow human beings should “die.” But such people have always existed and always will, and yet civilization survives and thrives.

The problem with today’s politics is not the existence (or even the popularity) of candidates like Roy Moore. It is difficult to speak to Candidate Moore’s actual qualifications relative to his opponent as I don’t follow Alabama politics and the articles I’ve seen on the subject tend to focus on particularly provocative aspects of the race. Moore was actually removed from the Supreme Court for his defense of a “Ten Commandments” monument in the courthouse, so there is plenty there with which to provoke. The race also pits “the establishment” versus “the real conservatives” as big names in politics have taken one side or the other. For all I know, maybe I would have preferred his opponent (Moore subsequently has won the election), but I did not follow the race well enough to know. In any case, I have no indication that Moore is any different from many other conservative candidates in heavily Republican leaning parts of the country.

“Southern women like their men religious and a little mad,” as Michael Shaara put it.

Rather, it is these headlines themselves are the problem. The problem is media outlets that will turn a story into a “fightin’ words” headline. The problem is that media outlets that will only run the more provocative stories in the first place, depriving the voting public with a comprehensive overview of the election. And the problem is also the reading public who reinforces this trend by being drawn to the spectacle and influenced by the smear tactics.

To be clear, the Huffington Post dislikes Moore, not because of an association with a particular pastor, but because he is a Republican, and a very conservative one at that. They know that they share this dislike with the left-leaning half of the country. The problem is, “their people” are less than half of the electorate of Alabama. So their goal is to tarnish Moore with an extremist tag that will reduce his support from those that would otherwise be inclined to vote for him.

Understandably, accusations of genocidal tendencies, whether they be based on race or religion or sexuality or other anything, tends to raise a big red flag for any citizen. Unfortunately merely the accusation, even if ultimately unfounded, influences our perception and, consequentially, our motivation. This is part of human nature. In another recent example, when organized white supremacist groups take a liking to a candidate, that association is blasted throughout the press. Donald Trump, seemingly is surviving it, but I remember the same tactic being used against Ron Paul right before his Republican presidential primary. It didn’t change anything about the candidate, but it changed the tone of the election. All the positive messaging of a candidate is sucked out of the room by the mere association with certain words and phrases.

This is where we stand today. We have realized the power of the “extremist” tag, and the ease with which it can be applied – often with the slightest of connection. But as we stare into that abyss, it also stares back at us. As we define the political landscape only by its “scary” “extremists,” that is the shape that the landscape takes.

With my recent exposure to both Snowden and Red Army, I began to ask a question.

If Putin’s Russia was more-or-less not involved in “throwing the election,” what would be his best move right now? To make it look like he did decide the election, of course.

Yesterday, the Wall St. Journal’s most recent article (paywall) talks about the how the press and the left are trying to make the most of the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. In fact, they’re not any closer (and perhaps less so) than U.S. policy and Democrat administrations working toward that policy. Before the Crimea sanctions in 2014, the policy of the U.S. was engagement toward Russian and the development of business and economic ties. To suddenly find evidence of a “Manchurian Candidate” behind every business relationship is fantasy to the point of derangement.

Likewise, anyone with half a brain understood the reality of the relationship between Putin’s Russia and the United States. We all know that former agent Putin has rebuild the security service of his nation on the model of his old KGB. We all know that Russia Today mixes real news, alternative stories, conspiracy theories and outright misdirection in a way that has appealed, particularly, to a certain segment of Americans. Anyone who couldn’t see the hand of new KGB behind that wasn’t paying attention. We all know that Russian mobsters are particularly adept at cybercrime and suspect that the ties between those mobsters and their government are a tangled web.

So knowing all that, are the “revelations” about the involvement of Russia really a sign of the greatest election corruption in the history of Democracy? Or is it pretty much business as usual for Putin’s Russia? We mere mortals have no way of knowing what the U.S. CIA, NSA, and FBI have as evidence regarding Russian activities. From what I’ve read, it is in line with what Russian has done for years.

But speculate with me here for a moment. If it is not. If there is evidence of a “smoking gun” connecting the Russian government to specific information release that impacted the election, which is easier? To hack Democrat’s email servers and provide the information to the public in a way that is a deciding factor to an election? Or to manufacture evidence, after the fact, to make it appear that intent and direction existed where there really was none?

The accusations of foreign meddling in elections is a favorite of Putin’s. If anything, it’s the conspiracy theories which bear his signature.

I direct you to a blog post by a Ukrainian citizen commenting on the involvement of Russia. His theory, which I like, is that whatever Putin may have done, the intent was not to throw the election. He, like everyone else, probably believe The Donald stood little to no chance. Instead, by feeding the anti-Hillary contingent during the election, he would weaken her administration by firing up the inevitable conservative opposition. Donald Trump as President may have actually been an even worse outcome, from Russia’s standpoint.

But now, his goal is still to embolden the opposition so as to weaken this administration. As before, he can do it by feeding this “Russian Stole the Election” mania of the left. Or, perhaps better yet, he can sit back and watch the American left try to destroy itself and everything else it can get its hands on.

As Napoleon was reported to have said to his Marshals, “When the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”

The blog Zombietime made an entry the other day that contains some profound truths that have me rethinking how I see the political world.

I actually do not agree with his primary premise; that the left has suffered a permanent reversal of fortune. Despite the sizeable electoral victory that president-elect Trump achieved, the election was still close. I still believe the election was the Democrat’s to lose. Lose they did, but their mistakes were many. From the choice of Hillary Clinton as their standard bearer to tactical mistakes in their campaign execution, they may have been closer than the numbers suggest.

Also, this election was nothing if not a set of unique circumstances. To extrapolate from this Trump victory to the future of our Republic might be stretching a bit too far.

However, I do think he has captured the trend correctly. This election was supposed to be another step on the path to permanent political majority for the Democrats. Whatever faults their candidate had were going to be washed over by the unpopularity of Donald Trump, and the permanent majority more and more would be cast in stone. A Senate majority and a majority of Supreme Court appointments would add to Obama’s 8-year reshaping of the bureaucracy. None of that happened – and that is, in fact, a big deal.

However, what I found even more illuminating was his analysis of the strategy of the Left. The strategy, adopted from the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy on cultural control of a society by its ruling class. From the article,

A conservative-minded populace will always vote for conservative-minded leaders, so the way to achieve communism in advanced nations, he argued, would be to first change the culture so that progressive ideals become dominant, and then people will simply vote themselves into communism without the need for a revolution.

This goes far to explain the inexplicable in the politics of the modern Left. The “War on Women,” the “Gender Gap,” “Global Warming.” are all policies without a discernible endgame, until you realize that just inculcating the population with ideas is the endgame.

Let’s take the “Gender Gap.” If you get your news from conservative sources, you probably that assume this issue is exaggerated for political effect. In fact, some studies put the gap at considerably less than the 31 cents out of a dollar that the left has been citing since the 1970s. One recent study, after removing all non-gender-bias effects and particularly considering hours worked, calculated the pay gap at 2 cents on the dollar, with a margin of error of +/-3. Effectively non-existent.

Even accepting that the Gender Gap is a real and important issue, once you look at the “solutions” coming out of the left things get more confusing. The bulk of recent State-based drives to “solve” the issue consisted mostly of restating gender equality restrictions that are also enforced at the Federal level via the courts. Tweaks around the edges merely try to eliminate any difference in pay, except that which is derived from certifications and credentials. It seems extremely unlikely that such laws would make any difference in a “Gender Gap” that, according to the arguments coming from the sponsors of these bills, has refused to change after almost 50 years of activism, not to mention countless legislative and judicial mandates.

But what if the issue isn’t to solve the “Gender Gap” at all? What if the issue is simply to create, in the minds of the population, the idea that the issue exists? What the left does goes further; they define a partisan difference. The population sees how progressives are committed to solving the Pay Gap issues whereas Conservatives oppose such efforts at every turn. So what is a voter to think? Do any of us want women to earn less money simply because they are women? Of course not. So we must vote Democrat.

A similar analysis can probably be made for most of the current wedge issues. Through it all, the conservative movement plays into the game. The right identifies the “right” side of the issue, and attacks the Progressive left with logic, facts, and figures. Many times the right even defeats the wedge issue legislation and claims victory.

But what if it is the goal of the Left to create permanent wedge issues that, then, will redefine how voters see themselves; as left or right, Democrat or Republican? If so, the Left doesn’t necessarily want to win. It may even be counter-productive, if a wedge issue turns into a non-issue. (Fortunately, conservatives help out here too as they are apt to continue pounding their fists against the walls of long lost battles).

I’m going to start thinking about every political or activist activity in light of this strategy, and see how different the world looks.

Before I do, I will return to the main point of the article.

I do believe his narrative is generally correct. He is correct that the Left has engaged in a long game for six decades that should now be coming to fruition. The signs are there that it is not bearing fruit as it should, and this is part of the Left’s frustration. I agree that this will cause the Left to double-down on their strategy, oblivious to its (hopefully) failure.

Think about one of the repeated laments of the Left in recent years. “Don’t those rednecks understand they’re voting against their own interests?” Or Hillary’s angry question, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead, you might ask? Well… the choice for working families has never been clearer!”

It’s a recognition that their strategy isn’t working out the way it “should,” and a bit of cognitive dissonance at the lack of results.

In light of this, I think part of the rapid disintegration of the Left in this election was not only due to a winding down of their long term strategy, but also a result of two medium term mistakes.

Mistake One: Demonizing George Bush. Their attacks on George Bush as the end of all things good and right came too soon. Bush won the close election against Gore because they were still a few years out from Obama’s “permanent majority,” not because their permanent majority was thwarted by the court. His re-election pretty much demonstrated that. But from the moment that it was clear that Florida was contested, they were full court press on trying to destroy him.

I think “normal people,” including both the non-political and the right-leaning folks who weren’t quite Bush fans, quickly became polarized by the viciousness of the invective coming out of the anti-Bush people. It was clearly overblown; disconnected from reality.

So now, when they wanted to bring it out again to defeat Trump? I think we’ve all become used to it. Yes, Trump is Hitler. So was Romney. So was McCain. And Bush, he was more Hitler than Hitler. We get it. Who cares.

Mistake Two: Demonizing Gun Owners. I think this one demographic turned the election and they did it exactly because of the attacks from the left. Put another way, I suspect a Hillary Clinton who was no threat to gun owners and the Second Amendment would have handily defeated a Donald Trump (who has his own spotty background on the subject).

This was another wedge issue, and one that looked to be, throughout the Obama years, the wedge issue of all wedge issues. For decades, the pop culture and media has told us all how scary guns are. Now that we’re all a’scared, we are shown the Democrats are the ones who are protecting us from these scary things and Republicans fight it at every turn. It worked in Europe, but…

It turns out that in the U.S., too many of us still have a direct experience with firearms, so we’re not getting all our info from anti-gun movies and media. Many of those people are the blue collar workers, the union members, a core constituency that the Left takes for granted. Not only didn’t this create more votes, but it also created a backlash. People who took no interest in politics suddenly joined the NRA, became informed, and became politically active. As fast as new assault weapon bans could be proposed, Constitution Carry laws were proposed and passed even faster.

As the original article indicates, the writing should have been on the wall. Bill Clinton took a drubbing after passing the original Assault Weapons Ban. But the playbook said it would work, and they played it. As Zombietime says,

…they will continue to play the old game. So they will lose. And lose. And lose. And lose. Over and over and over again until they too see the futility of the entire leftist worldview.

Before the election was settled, columnist Peggy Noonan wrote an editorial in the Wall St. Journal. The article itself is behind a paywall and the bulk of it is about a Danish political drama that ran from 2010-13 that is popular in the UK. The article explored some details of the show, but it was the last two paragraphs of the article that I found particularly insightful.

[The show] demonstrates, knowingly or not, that to be of the left in the Western political context is to operate in a broad, deep, richly populated liberal-world that rarely if ever is pierced by contrary thought. They are in a bubble they can’t see, even as they accuse others of living in bubbles. [Main character, Prime Minister] Birgitte sees herself as practical and pragmatic, and she is – within a broader context of absolute and unquestioned ideology.

It reminded me that as a general rule political parties and political actors do not change their minds based on evidence or argument. They have to be beaten. Only then can they rationalize change to themselves and their colleagues: “We keep losing!” Defeat is the only condition in which they can see the need for change. They have to be concussed into it.

“Concussed.” The Left will not changed until they are “concussed into it.” And a single Republican victory at the polls is a long way from providing that concussion.

As Winston Churchill said,

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.